Seattle Law Bloggers Meet

About once a quarter the Seattle Law Bloggers get together to share ideas on everything from Blogging techniques to practice management. The last meeting was held at Spitfire a local bar just north of the heart of downtown Seattle.

Nineteen (19) Bloggers were in attendance. See pics below:







In the picture above, Shalini Gujavarty (right) (www.avvoblog.com) is sitting beside D. Jill Pugh (www.employmentlawwa.com)

I think it's time for the Bloggers to take a roadtrip to Vancouver to meet some our fellow Blogger north of the border.

Rod

Cheer Leading Coach gets Dooced!!!

The term "dooced" used to mean that you were fired for something that you put on your Blog or website. The term was coined by Blogger Heather Armstrong when she was fired for commenting about her work on her Blog, dooce.com. Today, getting dooced is nothing new. Employees are routinely getting fired for their Internet activities.

Case in point, cheer leading Coach Carlie Christine was discovered posing as one of Playboy's Cyber Girls of the Week. The end result, Carlie is out job hunting. While some websites report that the revelation of Ms. Christine's photographic pursuits occurred after some bitter teens were cut from the cheer leading team, that really does not matter. Nor does it really matter that the parents were upset or that, allegedly, the entire football team was aware of the pictures. The bottom line is this. We are no longer living in a time when the only people with an Internet connection are scientists and geeks with lifetime memberships in the United Federation of Planets (Live long and prosper). As a consequence, the likelihood that your Internet activities will be discovered has increased exponentially.

Employees:

Let's put aside what your mom may think about your conduct. The real issue for employees is what future employers may think about you based on what you post online. The next time you wax poetic on your Blog or upload pictures of yourself and your friends in an alcohol and cannabis induced stupor, you may want to give thought to what a prospective employer will read and/or see. Is it fair? Probably not. However, when you are applying for a job, your employer will take the time to Google you. In most instances, they will not be impressed with your ability to chug a 40 oz beer. I'm not telling you not to do your "social thing" but consider who will see your pictures. Remember, just because you set your account to private won't stop one of your friends from copying and posting your embarrassing moments on their website. After that, the proverbial cat is out of the bag.

Employers:

Don't hide you head in the sand. Have a Blogging policy and advise your employees that you will consider conduct that may portray your company in a negative light as an offense that could result in termination. In that way, when you have to terminate someone, because of their conduct on the web, it will come as no surprise. I bet that Coach Christine did not make the connection between her pictures on web and her termination until it happened. By then it was too late. This has turned into a lose-lose situation. Ms. Christine has to find a new job and the school district is left looking for a new employee. A little communication may have avoided this entire issue.

Later,

Rod

For all you lawyers out there.

I came across a quote from the famous trial lawyer, Richard "Racehorse" Haynes, that I think any lawyer that tries cases can identify with:

"I would have won them [all], if my clients hadn't kept reloading their gun and firing."

Think about it.

Rod

Cracker Barrel settles sex harassment lawsuit

Cracker Barrel just settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with the EEOC. (Click here to read article) The allegations surrounding this claim were that the General Manager, Managers and male employees, at the Cedar Bluff, Tennessee Cracker Barrel, subjected female employees to lewd comments and sexual jokes. The employees alleged they reported their complaints to management and an employee hot line and no investigation was forthcoming.

The settlement requires Cracker Barrel to do the following:

1. Pay the victims $225,000;
2. Modify its sexual harassment and investigation policies; and
3. Perform the following for the next three (3) years:

a. conduct annual training on issues of sexual harassment and retaliation;
b. maintain of log of and report any claims of sexual harassment; and
c. post its policy on sexual harassment and that it will investigate anonymous complaints of harassment.

Bottom Line:

During tough economic times there is a tendency to avoid training on issues of harassment/discrimination in an effort to save money. This is the wrong approach to take. Training helps prevent lawsuits, stops you from paying attorneys, and allows your employees to focus on their jobs rather than have to do their jobs and participate in the litigation process.

Although training is key, please don't overlook reviewing your handbook. Policies that are antiquated should be eliminated. If you don't use or you don't follow it, get rid of it. The same holds true for your forms. As one speaker said, "I'd rather have no documentation than bad documentation." This hold true for forms. Forms are great, however, if your forms are never used they can become a liability. (see my previous posts on documentation)

Later,

Rod

Romance...

I just came across Vault's 2009 Office Romance Survey. Before I talk about the survey, here's my disclaimer. This seems to be a voluntary Internet survey and I have no idea how many people participated and whether it has any scientific validity. Also, this is probably the first time I have had what some may describe as a rant on my Blog.

So how did a simple survey on romance, of all things, get me so worked up? Simple, in my job I see the fallout from failed office romances. Too often they cause a mess. People lose their jobs and companies get sued. No, I am not being dramatic, although I will confess to having my moments. For every successful office romance, I can probably show you 5 disasters or at the very least a disaster in the making. Some of the results of the Vault 2009 Office Romance Survey surprised me, starting with Question1 (For those of you who can't wait to see the survey click here.)

Have you ever been involved in an office romance?
Results: Yes 58%
No but willing 12%
No 30%

In other words, the number of people that would have had an office romance would be as high as 70% but 12% of the survey participants haven’t had the opportunity, but they are ready to go. Following Question 1, Vault listed comments by survey participants. One of the comments listed, presumably by a survey participant, was:

"We worked in one large department, but were not related in subordination (I was in finance and he was a lawyer). The romance bloomed after a corporate party together but did not last long"

From this quote we can learn two things. First, contrary to popular belief, even lawyers are susceptible to Cupid’s arrows. Second, when it comes to matters of the heart, even those conservative legal and finance types don’t exercise the best judgment.

I am prepared to receive my share of hate mail from those of you who work tirelessly and don’t have time to engage in the time honored tradition of socializing outside of work to find a life partner. It takes effort, it costs money and it’s just not that efficient. Let’s face it, in tough economic times it is cheaper just to meet someone at work than go through the dating thing. What did your mom tell you? “Penny wise, pound foolish.” I also know that some of you probably met your soul mate at work. To you, I can only say, “I’m really happy for you. Too bad you are the exception rather than the rule.” According to the Vault survey only 24% of survey participants met their spouse/long term significant other on the job, which means the other 76% did not meet their life partner at work.

The truth is that most office romances don't last, they make things uncomfortable for your coworkers and cause problems for your employer. The problem in most cases is not the romance [although it can be a problem if you have couple of adults displaying PDA(public display of affection not personal digital assistant) like teenagers at summer camp]. In fact, the problem with an office romance begins in those 76% of the cases when the romance ends and someone is hurt. Hurt feelings cause people to act irrationally. Coworkers get recruited to align themselves with one person or the other. In the worst case, one of the refuges from the romance is in a position to make life, for the former object of their affection, miserable. This can lead to claims of harassment and retaliation.

Even if things don’t go that far, a failed romance can cause people to leave your company. Interestingly, the Vault survey found that 26% survey participants left their employer because it was "too awkward to work together after a break up." Heck, even if the romance is the start of a great relationship, it can cause an employee to leave. According to the Vault survey 26% said they didn't want to work together after they became a couple because of "too much closeness." In either circumstance, the employer loses out and has to absorb the cost of hiring and training a new employee. Now that I'm through with my rant, let me tell you how I really feel:

1. In my ideal world office romances of any sort would be banned. I would take it one step further. Anyone that thought of starting an office romance would be required to buy a pet. This would simultaneously solve the problems associated with office romances and overcrowded animal shelters. I have to be realistic. I understand that people are people and whether I like it or not they will have office romances. In my twisted lawyer world, your office romance is a form of job security.

2. If you have an office romance with someone you supervise, three words: Quid Pro Quo. When this relationship implodes, explodes or just gets messy, you may have just placed your company in the position of having to defend a claim for Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment. Trust me, when this relationship is over, particularly if you broke it off, the other person won't be shooting good vibes your way. More likely than not, they will begin to question whether this was a consensual relationship and whether you abused your power to get them to engage in this relationship.

3. If you think you can divorce your hurt feelings following a breakup from how you act toward your coworker/former special person, repeat after me: “You are hallucinating.” You can’t and no one expects you to, but your coworkers would appreciate it if you did not act out scenes from Fatal Attraction in the workplace.

4. Employers:

a. Recognize that office romances will happen and plan for them. Don’t be like the 65% of the companies that the Vault survey participants worked for that did not have a policy addressing office romance.
b. Consider at the very least having employees report their romance to HR, particularly if it involves a supervisor/subordinate romance.
c. Have a written policy addressing office romances that includes a protocol to report any retaliation that may occur once the romance ends. d. Once you have a written policy, train employees on how the policy works.

5.Employees:

a. Don't do it. Did I say, "Don't do it." If not, just don't.
b. I know we are all working long hours but it’s not Cupid’s arrow you feel. You are just too exhausted and delirious from working long hours to use good judgment. Get some rest and distance before you decide to jump into that romance.
c. If your coworker or boss is pressuring you to date or get romantic, tell them no and, if that does not work, run (don't walk) to HR and make a report.

Just some thoughts,

Rod

2.3 Million reasons to have an effective training program

On Wednesday of last week, a Los Angeles jury returned a verdict in favor of Officer Melissa Borck in a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department. The verdict: $2,300,000.00. (To read more click here.)

From what I have read, the allegations include an incident where a male officer pushed Officer Brock's head to his groin and stated, "I thought you would never ask." In addition, while pregnant, male officers commented about the size of her breasts and asked her to breast feed them. Borck contended that the stress of the hostile work environment caused her baby to be stillborn. She also contended that females were ordered, by male officers, to make coffee and get lunch. According to Borck, the work environment was one of constant harassment and retaliation for female officers.

This result should not have been unexpected. In November of 2008, the LAPD was hit with a $2.25 million dollar verdict in a suit brought by another female officer, Patricia Fuller of the Bomb Unit. Fuller alleged that she too was subjected to unwelcome sex based conduct that included male officers exposing their genitalia, sexually explicit comments, and exclusion from training programs.

The Bottom Line:

Contrary to popular belief, sexual harassment is not something that we no longer need to be concerned about. The truth of the matter is that human resources departments must continually fight this problem. There is no easy solution for the problem. Employers that have had success battling this form of harassment have taken a two prong approach to training. The first prong addresses issues of sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the workplace. The second emphasizes the manner in which complaints of harassment are reported and provides employees assurances that they will not be the subject of retaliation for their reports. However, no amount of training will be effective if upper management does not dig in its heels and mandate that a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment that includes harsh discipline for violations of that policy, even if the culprit is a "rising star" in the organization.

Later,

Rod